Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter Director Sandy Bahr said her organization is opposing several state bills and resolutions being proposed by the 2014 Arizona legislature concerning Mexican gray wolves. Wildlife officials estimate there are about 85 wolves in the wild in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to reintroduce the Mexican wolf to Arizona, including the southeastern part of Mohave County south of Interstate 40.

One state Senate bill, SB-1211, would allow an employee from the Arizona Department of Agriculture to kill any wolf that has killed or is killing livestock without facing penalty under federal law. It is also allows a cattle or livestock owner to kill a wolf that recently killed livestock — or is suspected in the killing of livestock — without penalty under federal law, Bahr said.

* Mexican gray wolves have not killed anyone in North America, Bahr said, but cows kill an average of 22 people each year by crushing or stomping a person, according to the Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention.

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, wolves also kill only 0.1 percent of cattle compared to dogs which cause 0.8 percent of cattle deaths. The leading cause of cattle deaths are respiratory failure at 22 percent and digestive problems at 14 percent. Weather causes 8.6 percent of cattle deaths while theft causes 2 percent of cattle deaths, according to the USDA.

Wolves are critical to the state’s ecosystem and help ensure that elk and deer population are fitter and healthier and that the vegetation is not overbrowsed by elk or deer, Bahr said. Wolves are also native to Arizona and New Mexico, she said.

Bahr said Americans for Prosperity is behind the anti-wolf campaign. The conservative organization is pushing to take the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act to the Supreme Court to rule it as unconstitutional, she said.

The county board of supervisors voted in November to send a letter stating its opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s plan to reintroduce the Mexican wolf into Arizona and Mohave County.

At last count, only 83 Mexican gray wolves persisted in the wild. The wild population is at tremendous risk due to its small size and genetics.

On Monday, Feb. 3, the Arizona Legislature’s Committee on Government and the Environment will hear legislation to push this tiny, critically endangered population of wolves even closer to extinction.

Legislation by AZ State Senator Gail Griffin (SB 1211) will allow far more trapping and killing of Mexican gray wolves than is allowed under federal law.

A second bill, SB 1212, will also be heard Monday that appropriates $250,000 for state litigation to impede federal efforts to recover Mexican wolves.

And as if that weren’t enough, Griffin and her colleagues are also pushing for a concurrent resolution against Mexican wolf recovery (SCR 1006).

Critically endangered Mexican gray wolves are native to Arizona and are an important part of our natural heritage. By restoring these beautiful, intelligent animals, we can eventually restore the balance to our state’s wild lands and achieve economic benefits from wolf focused eco-tourism.

Tell them politely that you expect them to oppose these bills that embarrass Arizona, waste taxpayer money and fly in the face of overwhelming majority public support for wolf recovery.

Additional talking points include:

Polling showed 77% of Arizona voters and 69% of New Mexico voters support the Mexican wolf reintroduction.

The livestock industry has a responsibility to share public lands with wolves and other wildlife. There are many tried and true methods to avoid conflicts between livestock and wolves. Funds are available to help livestock growers implement nonlethal deterrents, better animal husbandry practices, and other innovative tools that minimize conflict.

If state legislators really want to help, they should redirect the $250,000 slated for lawyers toward implementation of the new Coexistence Plan -- a performance-based program co-developed by ranchers, conservationists and wildlife agencies, which provides funds to help implement conflict-avoidance measures and “rewards” ranchers for helping to successfully raise the wolf population.

Wildlife biologists believe that Mexican wolves will improve the overall health of the Southwest and its rivers and streams – just as the return of gray wolves to Yellowstone has helped restore balance to its lands and waters..

Wolves generate economic benefits - a University of Montana study found that visitors who come to see wolves in Yellowstone contribute roughly $35.5 million annually to the regional economy.

To read the legislation that allows more killing of endangered wolves, click here.

PHOENIX -- A Northern Arizona lawmaker wants to put the state in charge of giving out federal dollars to ranchers who lose cattle to wolves.

Rep. Bob Thorpe, R-Flagstaff, contends the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is far too slow in responding to requests for reimbursement -- if it responds at all. He said the only way cattle owners are going to get justice is to force the federal government to put up a $500,000 cash bond and then let the state Department of Game and Fish decide which ranchers are eligible.

Thorpe said the issue has taken on importance amid efforts to reintroduce the Mexican gray wolf to Arizona and New Mexico -- and a decision to permit them to range all the way from Interstate 10 into the edges of Tucson and Phoenix and as far north as Interstate 40. That ends the practice of recapturing any wolves and returning them to the small release zone in the mountains along the Arizona-New Mexico border.

Thorpe said there was a "commitment' to the ranching community to reimburse them for animals lost to the wolves. But he claimed the federal government is not living up to its end of the bargain in recognizing wolf-caused depredation and reimbursing the ranchers.

But Sherry Barrett, the Mexican wolf recovery coordinator for the two-state region, said there's no basis for what Thorpe wants. She said there already is an adequate procedure set up to review claims, including a panel that actually includes ranchers.

Thorpe is not alone in wanting new ways for ranchers to deal with solves.

Sen. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, has introduced legislation that says state Game and Fish employees are not liable for federal penalties for killing a wolf "that has been documented or caught in the act of killing livestock.'

Her measure also adds wolves to the list of animals that can be killed to protect private property, a list that now includes bears and lions and seeks protection from federal prosecution for ranchers who exercise that authority.

Chris Tincher, spokeswoman for Fish and Wildlife, said she cannot comment on pending legislation. But Tincher said while her agency would consult with Game and Fish about any wolf kill, final decision on federal action against anyone would come through her agency and federal prosecutors.

Thorpe said his own measure follows what he said have been "quite a few complaints' from ranchers about losses in the two decades that there has been a wolf reintroduction program.

The first-term legislator conceded he has no firsthand knowledge of unreimbursed ranchers. Instead he is relying on what one person told him about "one of his ranching buddies' who was trying to get some money for dead cattle.

"Each time, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, they would come back with, "Well, you need to give us more proof,' "' Thorpe said.

"So he brought them a photograph of a wolf pulling away a calf,' Thorpe continued, with the calf's head in the wolf's mouth.

"They replied, "Well you need to show us more proof,' "' the lawmaker said. "That got me very concerned.'

"I've never seen that picture,' Barrett responded when asked about it. And she said she's in a position to know about it.

But even if there were such a photo, she said, that is hardly the proof that's required that the wolf killed the calf.

"It needs to be an investigation,' she said, complete with a forensic examination "to determine this is a valid kill.' Barrett said lots of other things can kill cattle, including feral dogs, bears and mountain lions.

"Or simply loco weed, different plant, or a disease,' she said.

Barrett said there are plenty of things that can show if the kill was from a wolf, ranging from the size and spacing of teeth marks to other tracks around the area.

She said how fast ranchers can get paid depends on how prompt they are at providing the information. "But it's within 30 days,' she said.

There's even a fee schedule, with a calf worth $800, $1,200 for a yearling, $1,450 for a cow and $2,500 for a bull.

Thorpe acknowledged there are issues -- including legal ones -- with his plan to demand money from the feds to allow it to be distributed by a state agency.

"This can't be just a blank check,' he said. "But at the same time, the system that's in place isn't working.'

He did not dispute that Fish and Wildlife is not about to hand over money to Arizona without a fight.

"We have to go through the courts process,' Thorpe said. "This could go all the way up the Supreme Court.'

And Thorpe said even if there are legal problems with his plan, having the Legislature approve his measure would be "a wake-up call for U.S. Fish and Wildlife' to be more responsive.

"They are subjecting the state of Arizona to a program that we didn't ask them to bring into the state,' he said. "We need to do something to get their attention to show that we're serious, that if they're going to be using Arizona land for this experimental population, then they need to fulfill their promises to our agricultural community.'

Thorpe's plan goes beyond who administers the fund. It also turns on its head the current requirement for the rancher to provide some proof, subject to verification, that a bull, a cow or a calf was lost to a wolf.

"It's my feeling that U.S. Fish and Wildlife is going to have to prove that it wasn't a wolf, as opposed to the opposite,' Thorpe said. "They need to come forward either with some evidence or something compelling to make the case that a payout is not reasonable.'

If you live in AZ, you can help by contacting members of the committee on government and environment* and by submitting a letter to the editor. If you don’t live in AZ, you can still help by submitting a letter to the editor

The letters to the editor page is one of the most widely read, influential parts of the newspaper. One letter from you can reach thousands of people and will also likely be read by decision-makers. Tips and talking points for writing your letter are below, but please write in your own words, from your own experience. These are also good talking points for contacting your legislators.

Letter Writing Tips & Talking Points

At last official count, only 75 Mexican gray wolves, including only 3 breeding pairs were found in the wild, making them the most endangered wolf in the world. Senator Griffin’s bills aim to push them closer to extinction.

Sen. Griffin’s proposed legislation will waste taxpayer money on litigation to impede wolf recovery and embarrass the state by attempting to illegally override federal laws that protect endangered species.

The livestock industry has a responsibility to share public lands with wolves and other wildlife. There are many tried and true methods to avoid conflicts between livestock and wolves. Funds are available to help livestock growers implement nonlethal deterrents, better animal husbandry practices, and other innovative tools that minimize conflict.

Polling showed 77% of Arizona voters support the Mexican wolf reintroduction. Legislation to impede wolf recovery is a slap in the face to the majority of voters who want wolves to thrive.

Wildlife biologists believe that Mexican wolves will improve the overall health of the Southwest and its rivers and streams – just as the return of gray wolves to Yellowstone has helped restore balance to its lands and waters.

Wolves generate economic benefits - a University of Montana study found that visitors who come to see wolves in Yellowstone contribute roughly $35.5 million annually to the regional economy.

Wolves once lived throughout Arizona and played a critical role in keeping the balance of nature in place. We need to restore this important animal that has been missing for too long.

Make sure you:

Thank the paper for publishing the article.

Do not repeat any negative messages from the article, such as “cows may have been killed by wolves, but…” Remember that those reading your letter will not be looking at the article it responds to, so this is an opportunity to get out positive messages about wolf recovery rather than to argue with the original article.

Keep your letter brief, between 150-300 words.

Include something about who you are and why you care: E.g. “I am a mother, outdoors person, teacher, business owner, scientific, religious, etc.”

Provide your name, address, phone number and address. The paper won’t publish these, but they want to know you are who you say you are.

If you live in AZ, please also contact members of the committee on government and environment* directly and tell them politely that your expect them to oppose these bills that embarrass Arizona, waste taxpayer money and fly in the face of overwhelming majority public support for wolf recovery.

Think of hiking on the Prescott Circle Trail and seeing a wolf. For a hiker this would probably be a thrilling and rewarding outdoors experience. But The Daily Courier considers an opportunity like this "ludicrous" (Editorial: "Reintroducing wolves is an unworkable plan," Dec. 4, 2013).

Local public officials do not want Mexican wolves roaming around Yavapai County either. In an Aug. 1, 2013, letter to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors opposes expanding the Mexican gray wolf recovery area as a "serious threat" to ranching, hunting and outdoor recreation. The supervisors contend the Mexican wolf has recovered and does not warrant federal protection.

Others believe the Mexican lobo, the world's most endangered wolf, desperately needs our help to regain its rightful place in the natural ecosystem. To make this happen, FWS proposes to restore the wolf to its historic range and to list the Mexican wolf as an essential sub-species of the gray wolf with federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

In its letter to FWS, the Yavapai Supervisors embrace the special interests of ranchers by citing figures from "Mexican Wolf Recovery," an undated, unscientific and poorly written report by Jess Carey, a self-described "Wolf Interaction Investigator" from New Mexico's Catron County known for its open hostility to wolf reintroduction. From the chapter "How Much Do Family Ranchers Loose [sic] to Mexican Wolves?" the supervisors' letter quotes a total of 651 head of cattle lost to wolf depredation at five ranches in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in Catron County. The supervisors tell FWS they do not want to see this "collateral damage to achieve Mexican Wolf Recovery in Yavapai County."

In the Carey report, it is impossible to tell which year or years the cattle loss figure of 651 refers to or how it was arrived at. The figure of 651 does appear to be highly inflated since the Cattle Death Loss from wolf depredation compiled by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is 238 for the entire state of New Mexico in 2011. According to NASS, in 2011 wolf depredation represents 2.4 percent of total cattle deaths compared to 27.6 percent from dog and coyote depredation. In public comment to FWS, Prescott resident and retired judge Ralph Hess also points out the Carey report "fails to analyze the impact of the [wolf] Recovery Program on domestic livestock clearly and accurately. I find the (NASS) analysis to be more comprehensive and reliable."

The Yavapai Supervisors urge FWS to let Arizona Game & Fish "implement effective wolf management procedures" because "We do not wish to have (sportsmen's) activities and our economy put in jeopardy because of the Mexican Wolves' habitat." At the state level, "wildlife management" means guaranteeing a reliable supply of game animals for hunters to "harvest." States view wolves not as game and not as wildlife, but as competitors for the animals preferred by hunters, namely deer and elk. In the Arizona Republic, John Koleszar, vice president of the Arizona Deer Association, complains there are already too few hunting opportunities: "You're telling me you want to put another top-line predator all along the Mogollon Rim?"

Contrary to the supervisors' contention that Mexican wolves "have recovered efficiently [sic]", only 75 lobos have recovered toward a target population of 100 set in 1982. FWS has yet to adopt the 2005 recommendation of the Mexican wolf recovery planning team of 750 wolves as the population goal of successful recovery. This requires the release of more breeding pairs of Mexican wolves into the wild from 300 still at captive breeding sites and establishing at least three core populations able to disperse into suitable habitat throughout their historic range between the Grand Canyon and Mexico.

Time is running out for Mexican gray wolves when delay means extinction. FWS is ignoring the recovery team's best science, while in the wild wolves are threatened by illegal killing, legal killing by ranchers and Wildlife Services, lack of genetic diversity, and capturing and relocating wolves straying outside arbitrary boundaries. Helping to return Mexican wolves to the wildlife community faces fierce opposition from public-land ranchers, hunters and local and state public officials.

Between hysterical lobophobia and special interest politics, seeing a lobo on the trail may be a long time coming.

Dennis DuVall, a Prescott resident, offered public comment at both the Yavapai County Board of Supervisor's meeting on Aug. 1, 2013, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife hearing in Pinetop on Dec. 3, 2013.

This Guest Column was published in The Daily Courier on December 31, 2013.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION FOR MEXICAN WOLVES!

You can help ensure the future of the lobo by writing a letter to the Editor of The Daily Courier here.

The letters to the editor page is one of the most widely read, influential parts of the newspaper. One letter from you can reach thousands of people and will also likely be read by decision-makers. Tips for writing your letter are below, but please write in your own words, from your own experience. Don’t try to include all the talking points in your letter.

Letter Writing Tips & Talking Points

Below are a few suggestions for ensuring your message gets through clearly-your letter will be most effective if you focus on a few key points, so don’t try to use all of these. If you need additional help or want someone to review your letter before you send it, email it to info@mexicanwolves.org.

Start by thanking paper for publishing this article. This makes your letter immediately relevant and increases its chances of being published.

found 77 percent of Arizona respondents support the reintroduction of Mexican gray wolves. The poll also showed strong majority support for giving wolves greater protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The Fish and Wildlife Service should increase protections for these wolves, and expedite the Mexican gray wolf recovery planning process. The current recovery plan was developed in 1982 and is extremely outdated. The 1982 plan does not discuss genetics, which has proven to be a critical element in population health. A draft recovery plan to replace the outdated 1982 plan has been developed but politics has stalled the recovery planning process.

The draft recovery plan should be put out for public comment.

There is plenty of room for many more wolves to be released.The Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area comprises 4.4 million acres (twice the size of Yellowstone National Park), which support an extraordinary array of wildlife and vegetation types. The Fish and Wildlife Service is using the mere presence of livestock as a justification not to release wolves into a wider range of the available area in Arizona, and has refused to change the rule that arbitrarily excludes new wolves from being released directly into New Mexico.

Additional populations of Mexican wolves are necessary to their recovery and genetic health, as is the ability for wolves to move between populations. More Mexican wolves are desperately needed to strengthen the wild population’s genetics and increase their numbers. There are many more Mexican wolves languishing in captive facilities right now that could be released. The USFWS should expedite the releases of these eligible wolves.

Describe the ecological benefits of wolves to entire ecosystems and all wildlife. Wildlife biologists believe that Mexican wolves will improve the overall health of the Southwest and its rivers and streams – just as the return of gray wolves to Yellowstone has helped restore balance to its lands and waters. Science has repeatedly demonstrated that wolves are keystone carnivores who help to keep wildlife like elk and deer healthy and bring balance to the lands they inhabit.

Talk about your personal connection to wolves and why the issue is important to you. If you’re a grandmother wanting your grandchildren to have the opportunity to hear wolves in the wild, or a hunter who recognizes that wolves make game herds healthier, or a businessperson who knows that wolves have brought millions in ecotourism dollars to Yellowstone, say so.

Keep your letter brief, between 150-200 words.

Provide your name, address, occupation, and phone number; your full address, occupation, and phone number will not be published, but they are required in order to have your letter published.

The wild population of Mexican wolves is genetically impoverished and the danger of long held captivity for the Mexican Gray Wolves is the fact that the captive wolves are aging out. They are quickly becoming too old to be parents.

This will result in genetic degradation that will compromise the wolves' immune systems, and render them more susceptible to illness in the wilderness.

We need for more of our younger Mexican Gray Wolves to be released into the wild to begin breeding new Packs.

These wild acclimated wolves will be genetically stronger and able to withstand the environmental challenges that come about with climate change. By keeping the Mexican Gray Wolves in the wild we also avoid the impact removals have on populations, dependent pups and their genetic value.

The current Mexican Wolf recovery effort has failed to reach the first reintroduction objective of at least 100 wolves in the wild. Given the fact that we only have two breeding pairs of Mexican Gray Wolves in the wilderness, and a population of 75, this places unrealistic expectations that 4 wolves can effectively create a sustainable wolf population. Please release more wolves into the wilderness to create a population base that can thrive and become self sustaining.

In order to safeguard the complete and successful recovery efforts for Mexican Gray Wolves, we need to plan for livestock/predator conflicts. We can do so by increasing temporary electric fencing, range riders, guard dogs and other non-lethal predator control for Mexican wolf recovery. Education and awareness of these methods of predator control are essential to ensure that our recovery efforts to repopulate the S.W. with Mexican Gray Wolves do not result in future grim statistics of wolf mortalities due to livestock predations.

Mexican Gray wolves need a distinct listing for higher protection, and a scientifically valid Recovery Plan. By classifying the Mexican Gray wolf as "experimental" or "non-essential", you are removing legal protection for their safety and recovery in the wild, setting them up to be victims of potential eradication by special interests. It will do no good to release them into the wild without proper protection from trapping and shooting, and that safety will come about from classification of essential status. By keeping the Mexican Gray Wolves in the wild we avoid the impact removals have on populations, dependent pups + their genetic value

Please reclassify Mexican wolves as "experimental, essential" population and effectively shift management from that of predator control to that of wolf recovery.

The original goal of Mexican wolf recovery to ecologically appropriate and historic habitat is being abandoned

The USFWS draft rule fails to delineate the geographic extent of area in which Mexican Gray Wolves would receive protection. Arbitrary boundaries of the Mexican Gray Wolf recovery zone below AZ’s highway 40 prevents better habitat near the Grand Canyon. USFWS proposed recovery plan for Mexican Gray Wolves does not adequately expand the animal's range in New Mexico and Arizona. Mexican Gray Wolves are the most endangered mammal in the U.S. and need to be released to Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, and be given the highest protection status possible to ensure their complete and successful recovery.

The presence of Mexican Gray Wolves can affect the population and distribution of other smaller predators. Changes in the population and distribution of these species will have positive effects on other species from ground-nesting birds to small mammals. Mexican Wolves in their range in the S.W.means positive cascading effects on the region’s stressed ecosystems. USFWS, please quit stalling on our comprehensive Mexican Gray Wolf recovery plan. The environment that the Mexican Gray Wolves should be occupying will only benefit from their presence.

Please read this, doesn't take long and it explains in depth and succinctly the history of the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery saga, and why we need to continue to speak for these beautiful little Wolf Buddies.

Some talking points for your comment to the USFWS, telling them that Mexican Gray Wolves are an essential species, and need a new, scientifically based recovery plan.

1.A new, science-based recovery plan to replace the outdated 1982 plan is way overdue; the US Fish and Wildlife Service should be doing all in its power to expedite release of a draft plan based on the work of the scientific subcommittee.

2.Consistent with the Interior Department's Scientific Integrity Policy, a thorough investigation of political interference with the scientific recovery planning process should be made immediately in response to the complaint by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

3.Obstruction by anti-wolf special interests and politics has kept this small population of unique and critically endangered wolves at the brink of extinction for too long and can no longer be allowed to do so.

Development of a new recovery plan that will address decreased genetic health and ensure long-term resiliency in Mexican wolf populations must move forward without delay.

4.The majority of New Mexico and Arizona voters support the Mexican wolf reintroduction. Polling showed 69% support in New Mexico and 77% support in Arizona.

5.Wolves bring tremendous ecological benefits to entire ecosystems and all wildlife. Wildlife biologists believe that Mexican wolves will improve the overall health of the Southwest and its rivers and streams – just as the return of gray wolves to Yellowstone has helped restore balance to its lands and waters.

http://nowolfhaters.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

Read of what is important to say when you submit your comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service here for the Mexican Gray Wolves:

Please comment on the proposed changes and include the following key points:

1. The good change is to allow direct releases of Mexican wolves throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. The USFWS should put the rest of their proposed rule on hold and speed up approval for more direct releases in expanded areas.

This change has been recommended by experts for over 10 years and can be made faster and with less bureaucratic delay than any other part of the proposed rule.

2. The proposed rule effectively prevents wolves returning to the Grand Canyon region, including northern Arizona and southern Utah, or to northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. The USFWS should eliminate boundaries to the wolves’ movement.

Scientists say some of the last best places for wolves are in these areas, but currently wolves who set up territories outside the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area are recaptured and moved back. Under the proposed change, the USFWS will recapture Mexican wolves just for going outside of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area whether they establish territories or not. Additional populations of Mexican wolves are necessary to their recovery and genetic health, as is the ability for wolves to move between populations.

Capturing and moving wolves is always a risky business that can result in death or trauma to the wolf. And a bigger box is still a box.

3. The USFWS should not re-designate Mexican gray wolves as experimental, non-essential. By labeling all of the wild wolves as “nonessential” the USFWS ignores science and the reality of 15 years of experience with reintroducing wolves.

The USFWS claims that even if all of the 75 wolves in the wild are wiped out this is not “likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood” of recovery of Mexican wolves in the wild. When the current rule declared wolves in the wild “nonessential” there were only 11 wolves, recently released from a captive breeding program, and they made up only 7% of all Mexican wolves in the world.

Now the 75 wolves in the wild have up to four generations of experience in establishing packs and raising pups and are over 22% of all of the Mexican wolves in the world. And after four generations of captive breeding with few releases, scientists warn that there may be serious genetic problems making captive wolves less able to thrive in the wild.

The fourth generation wild lobos are not expendable and are essential to recovering this unique subspecies of wolf.

4. The USFWS needs to quit stalling and complete a comprehensive recovery plan – and let the public see it – at the same time as or before changing the current rule (except for allowing wolves to be reintroduced into additional suitable places).

USFWS admits that their present, typewritten, 1982 recovery plan is not scientifically sound and does not meet current legal requirements – yet in its proposed rule USFWS continues to emphasize a woefully inadequate population of only 100 wolves in the wild.

When USFWS published the current rule in 1998 they said they expected to put out a new recovery plan for the public to comment on later that year; 15 years later, there still is no scientific or legally adequate recovery plan!

The proposed rule puts the cart before the horse and should come with or after – not before – an updated recovery plan

USFWS’s decisions on the proposed rule can help Mexican wolves finally thrive or can push them closer to extinction. Please comment today, and ask others to do the same.

PUTTING POLITICS BEFORE SCIENCE WON'T SAVE THE LOBONovember 27. 2013

Posted by: Eva Sargent

With winter upon us and the days getting noticeably shorter, so too is the time left to speak out on behalf of Mexican gray wolves. Among the country’s most imperiled species, there are only about 75 lobos left in the wild. The ultimate fate of these iconic animals could be decided in the next year and, troublingly, it appears that the wolves’ best interests may not be the only factors at play.

A Mexican gray wolf pup howling. (Photo courtesy of the USFWS)

Scientists agree that there are three things vital to successful wolf recovery – a comprehensive, science-based recovery plan; the release of more wolves into the wild; and at least two new core populations in the most suitable habitat areas in the Grand Canyon region and southern Utah/southern Colorado. But these recommendations are seemingly falling on deaf ears as the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) makes decisions about the lobos’ future management that ignore these basic findings. Worse still, the FWS may be engaging in some backroom dealing with states.

A letter from the director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department to FWS Director Dan Ashe dated August 1st of this year suggests that in a discussion on July 23rd, state and federal officials came to certain agreements regarding the proposed rule changes for Mexican gray wolf management. Not only do the agreements alluded to in the letter imply that the FWS decisions on the wolf were made before due public process, but, what’s worse, they ensure that the lobos are not allowed to disperse outside of an arbitrarily drawn geographic region – which precludes them from reaching the suitable habitat necessary for recovery.

Perhaps if the FWS had taken a hard look at just how significant lobos are to the ecological health of the Southwest before having this private “discussion,” the conversation would have gone a little differently. The FWS proposal not only blatantly ignores best science, but also the opinions of the public. A recent poll conducted by Tulchin Research reveals overwhelming support for Mexican gray wolves in the Southwest. 87% of voters polled in both Arizona and New Mexico agree that wolves are a “vital part of America’s wilderness and natural heritage;” 8 in 10 of those polled agree that the FWS should make every effort to prevent extinction; 82% of Arizona respondents and 74% of New Mexico respondents agree there should be a science-based recovery plan; and over two-thirds of voters polled in both states agree with scientists who say there are too few wolves in Arizona and New Mexico and that we need to reintroduce two new populations of wolves in suitable habitat in the states.

If these numbers don’t make it clear to the FWS that Americans want to save the lobo, I don’t know what could.

Our nation is one that prides itself on both preserving the symbols of our character and on scientific innovation, so why is it so easy for the government to turn a blind eye to basic, sound science that tells us how to save one of America’s most iconic animals just to play politics instead?

Please tell the United States Fish and Wildlife Services that Mexican Gray Wolves are essential.Send this:The USFWS should designate Mexican gray wolves as essential. By labeling all of the wild wolves as “nonessential” the USFWS ignores science and the reality of 15 years of experience with reintroducing wolves.The 75 wolves in the wild have up to four generations of experience in establishing packs and raising pups and are over 22% of all of the Mexican wolves in the world.The USFWS needs to quit stalling and complete a comprehensive recovery plan at the same time as or before changing the current rule.Send here:http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056-2892

Please speak to USFWS on behalf of our Mexican Gray Wolves by December 17 .2013

COMMENTS NEEDED ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGES REGARDING REINTRODUCTION INTO THE WILD OF THE MEXICAN GRAY WOLF

Recently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed changes to the rules governing the Mexican wolf reintroduction. The proposal, with one very good and many very bad changes, is very important to the future of Mexican wolves.

Please comment on the proposed changes and include the following key points:

1. The good change is to allow direct releases of Mexican wolves throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. The USFWS should put the rest of their proposed rule on hold and speed up approval for more direct releases in expanded areas.

This change has been recommended by experts for over 10 years and can be made faster and with less bureaucratic delay than any other part of the proposed rule.

2. The proposed rule effectively prevents wolves returning to the Grand Canyon region, including northern Arizona and southern Utah, or to northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. The USFWS should eliminate boundaries to the wolves’ movement.

Scientists say some of the last best places for wolves are in these areas, but currently wolves who set up territories outside the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area are recaptured and moved back. Under the proposed change, the USFWS will recapture Mexican wolves just for going outside of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area whether they establish territories or not. Additional populations of Mexican wolves are necessary to their recovery and genetic health, as is the ability for wolves to move between populations.

Capturing and moving wolves is always a risky business that can result in death or trauma to the wolf. And a bigger box is still a box.

3. The USFWS should not re-designate Mexican gray wolves as experimental, non-essential. By labeling all of the wild wolves as “nonessential” the USFWS ignores science and the reality of 15 years of experience with reintroducing wolves.

The USFWS claims that even if all of the 75 wolves in the wild are wiped out this is not “likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood” of recovery of Mexican wolves in the wild. When the current rule declared wolves in the wild “nonessential” there were only 11 wolves, recently released from a captive breeding program, and they made up only 7% of all Mexican wolves in the world.

Now the 75 wolves in the wild have up to four generations of experience in establishing packs and raising pups and are over 22% of all of the Mexican wolves in the world. And after four generations of captive breeding with few releases, scientists warn that there may be serious genetic problems making captive wolves less able to thrive in the wild.

The fourth generation wild lobos are not expendable and are essential to recovering this unique subspecies of wolf.

4. The USFWS needs to quit stalling and complete a comprehensive recovery plan – and let the public see it – at the same time as or before changing the current rule (except for allowing wolves to be reintroduced into additional suitable places).

USFWS admits that their present, typewritten, 1982 recovery plan is not scientifically sound and does not meet current legal requirements – yet in its proposed rule USFWS continues to emphasize a woefully inadequate population of only 100 wolves in the wild.

When USFWS published the current rule in 1998 they said they expected to put out a new recovery plan for the public to comment on later that year; 15 years later, there still is no scientific or legally adequate recovery plan!

The proposed rule puts the cart before the horse and should come with or after – not before – an updated recovery plan

USFWS’s decisions on the proposed rule can help Mexican wolves finally thrive or can push them closer to extinction. Please comment today, and ask others to do the same.

If you live in New Mexico, you can also help by calling NM Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich:

Udall: ABQ: (505) 346-6791 ~ Santa Fe: (505) 988-6511

Heinrich: ABQ: (505) 346-6601 ~ Santa Fe: (505) 988-6647

Sample phone script:

Hello, my name is ___________________, and I am a constituent from _________________ and a supporter of Mexican wolf recovery.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed rule changes that affect the future of endangered Mexican gray wolves. I want Senator Udall (Or Heinrich) to use his influence to persuade the US Fish and Wildlife Service to:

* Expedite a rule change that allows new Mexican wolves to be released directly into New Mexico and throughout the recovery area;

* Do all in its power to improve the wild population’s genetic health; and

North America: increasing efforts to protect the Mexican wolfBetween Arizona and New Mexico there is a group of 75 Mexican wolves living free

08/11/2013

The Mexican wolf starring one of the greatest challenges of animal conservation in the world save from extinction is a task that has not been easy.

The effort to rescue this species is shared between Mexico and the United States through the Binational Program Captive Breeding Mexican Gray Wolf, who has witnessed the birth of more than 1,200 pups from its inception in 1977.

Currently, the captive population consists of almost 300 individuals, living in 52 zoos and ranches north and south of the Rio Grande. These figures are of recognition, but any recovery effort is complete without at least one manages to reintroduce wolf population to its natural range.

There have been several attempts by both countries to achieve again the inclusion of this animal, but the results are not as expected. Almost half of the wolves released in the United States and Mexico, since 1998, have been killed by shooting or poisoning.

One of the biggest obstacles are the farmers, who seek the wolves away from their livestock and / or agricultural products or livestock.

"When a species becomes extinct are few opportunities we have to reintroduce and to redress the mistake we made. To get to where we are has required more than 15 years of work by two countries. To get where we want to be we have a long time and will require a lot of effort, "said Oscar Ramirez Flores, director of Priority Species for Conservation of the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (Conanp).

Nevertheless, there is good news. Between Arizona and New Mexico, there is a group of 75 Mexican wolves living free, of whom 74 were born in freedom and have always lived well.

Currently, specialists working in some natural areas that have potential to host the Mexican wolf, like, the Sierra San Luis, Janos, who is in Sonora and Casas Grandes and Nuevo Casas Grandes, Chihuahua.

In rural Reserve, New Mexico, children wait for school buses inside boxy, wood-and-mesh structures that look like chicken coops. The "kid cages" are meant as protection from wolves. But are they even necessary?

The issue is part of a long-simmering political debate, which recently came to a boil in the Southwest when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it wants the Endangered Species Act to cover about 75 Mexican wolves in New Mexico and Arizona. That would make it illegal to kill these wolves—a smaller subspecies of gray wolf—and expand the area where they can roam safely.

Conservative groups, which call wolves a threat to humans and livestock alike, say that would be government overreach. Wolf defenders, who cite the fact that no wolf attacks have been documented in New Mexico or Arizona, call the new kid cages a stunt.

To understand the issue on scientific terms, we spoke with Daniel MacNulty, a wildlife-ecology professor at Utah State University who's been studying wolves in Yellowstone National Park for the past 18 years.

Are wolves in the Southwest really a threat to schoolchildren and other humans?

Are they a meaningful threat? No. Is the probability of wolves hurting someone zero? No. Is it close to zero? Yes, very close.

A child in a rural area is more likely to [be hurt or killed in] an incident with an off-road all-terrain vehicle, or in an encounter with a feral dog, or in a hunting accident. There are very, very few instances in North America of wolves hurting anybody, let alone children.

Another thing to keep in mind: Mexican wolves are not very large—they weigh just 60 to 80 pounds. Compare that to wolves up in Yellowstone, which can be upward of 130 pounds. As a result, [Mexican wolves are] more easily intimidated by people, livestock, and wild prey.

So I think people are overreacting here, as is often the case with wolves.

Practically speaking, would those "kid cages" even protect children from wolves?

I've not seen the cages. But wolves are not sharks. Cages are unnecessary because wolves aren't going to be attacking children at the bus stop. The suggestion that they would is fear-mongering and unhinged from the facts.

I think the "kid cages" are a publicity stunt designed to stoke opposition to Mexican wolf recovery in general and to the federal government in particular. Why else would the anti-federalist group Americans for Prosperity

be circulating photos and videos of the cages? I would be skeptical of any wolf-related information coming from this organization or its agents.

Why do you think wolves are so often vilified in the popular imagination?

They take things that we value: They kill livestock and pets. They infringe on our sense of safety. The fact that they take things from us creates alarm and exaggerated notions of their power.

Wolves do have the power to kill—there's no question about it. That's how they make a living. But that power is checked by very real biological limits: their skeletal morphology, their behavior, their size, their age—factors that limit their capacity to kill.

For that reason, they're selective about what they kill. They primarily target juvenile livestock, because they're small and they're easy to kill—there's very little risk of being injured in the process. Same with wild prey. They primarily kill fawns and elk calves. And among the adults, they mainly kill the older animals.

When I see wolves in the field, they often run away. The reason is they're intimidated. And that's in Yellowstone. My guess is that Mexican wolves are generally even more intimidated [by people].

Does that change when it's a pack situation, rather than an individual wolf?

There's no data to show it, but I'd say a pack is probably more likely to be bold than an individual. Solitary wolves are fairly easily intimidated.

In terms of hunting, we know from our analyses of packs up in Yellowstone that success at hunting elk peaks at about four [wolves]. In other words, beyond four wolves, each additional wolf doesn't increase the success rate of the pack.

We think the reason for that is that when a pack of ten shows up, they don't all contribute equally to the outcome of the hunt. Only about four of them actually do anything. The rest are there simply to be on hand when a kill is made.

Pack size probably matters most from a social perspective—in terms of wolves' relationship with each other. A bigger pack will overcome a smaller pack in a competition for turf.

What should people do when they encounter wolves?

Encountering wolves in the wild is a thrilling, safe experience. If you're lucky enough to see them without them detecting you, then sit back, relax, and enjoy the opportunity to observe wild wolf behavior. If they detect you first, it's likely they'll run off before you even know it.

Wild wolves are generally intimidated by humans.

So how should we think about wolves?

What people have to understand is that wolves do not have supernatural powers. They can't jump over mountain ranges. They can't bring down a moose with a single bite to the neck. They have intrinsic biological limits, which means they have a constrained role on the landscape and in the environment.

People can avoid overreacting to wolves by understanding that the power of wolves is limited. It's as simple as that.

The U.S. wants to ban most killing of wild Mexican wolves in New Mexico and Arizona, and expand the area where the animals can roam. But many see federal overreach.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to extend Endangered Species Act protections for an estimated 75 Mexican wolves in the wild in New Mexico and Arizona. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / January 25, 1998)

By Julie Cart

October 26, 2013, 6:30 p.m.

ALBUQUERQUE — In the small, rural community of Reserve, children waiting for the school bus gather inside wooden and mesh cages provided as protection from wolves. Parents consider the "kid cages" a reasonable precaution.

Defenders of the wolves note there have been no documented wolf attacks in New Mexico or Arizona. Fears of wolves attacking humans, they say, are overblown, and the cages nothing more than a stunt.

In 1995, the reintroduction of Canadian gray wolves into the northern Rockies ignited a furor.

Now that acrimony has cascaded into the Southwest, where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to extend Endangered Species Act protections for an estimated 75 Mexican wolves in the wild in New Mexico and Arizona.

Such protections would make it illegal to kill wolves in most instances. The new federal plan would also significantly expand the area where the wolves could roam unmolested.

To many conservatives in the West, such protections are examples of government overreach — idealistic efforts by officials who don't know what it's like to live with wolves.

"People have to stand up and defend our rights," said Wink Crigler, a fifth-generation rancher from Arizona who says guests at her tourist cabins fear they might be attacked by wolves.

Anti-wolf campaigns here — paid for by conservative political organizations antagonistic toward the federal government — often portray the animal as a savage devil preying on children.

The antipathy has encouraged scores of illegal killings of Mexican wolves, whose population dwindled to seven before federal efforts to reintroduce them began in 1998. A young male wolf was fatally shot with an arrow a few weeks ago in the same rural Catron County that uses the kid cages.

Into this atmosphere have come federal officials who by the end of the year are expected to finalize their plan for managing Mexican wolves, a smaller and tawnier subspecies of the Canadian grays.

"With the political debate we see raging, we can't just listen to the loudest voice in the room," said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe. "There are many loud voices in the room. No animal engenders more polarizing emotion among Americans than does the wolf."]]

It is a public policy debate driven not just by biology and science, but by emotional appeals and unalloyed partisanship.

When a previously scheduled Oct. 4 public comment hearing about wolf management was postponed by the government shutdown, advocates came out anyway, staking out nearby meeting rooms at an Albuquerque hotel.

The Save the Lobo rally, paid for by Defenders of Wildlife, featured a man in a wolf costume, children scrawling placards with crayons and people offering videotaped testimony to be forwarded to Washington.

Down the hall, an anti-wolf event was sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by the conservative Koch brothers. The group offered literature by Ayn Rand and screened the documentary "Wolves in Government Clothing," which equated rampaging wolves with an out-of-control federal government. Said one Arizona rancher at the event: "Is this politically driven? Absolutely."

An armed guard patrolled — made necessary, Americans for Prosperity said, by death threats from environmental groups.

The issue of public safety loomed large, with much discussion of the kid cages, boxy structures that resemble chicken coops. Photos and video of the cages have been circulated by Americans for Prosperity, although it was unclear how many exist or who requested or paid for them. Local media reports suggest at least some of them were built by students in a high school shop class.

Calls to the superintendent of schools in Reserve were not returned.

To Carolyn Nelson, a teacher in Catron County, the cages don't go far enough to protect children. She said that seven years ago her son, then 14, was out walking and came across three wolves. Frightened, he backed against a tree. One wolf stared him down while the other two circled.

Only when the boy cocked the gun he was carrying did the wolves run off.

"I think it was a miracle he wasn't killed," she said.

Crigler, who attended the event, said she understood the fears of the guests in her tourist cabins. "I can't tell them that they are perfectly safe. There is some degree of risk," she said. "My concern is that I see wolves habituated to people. They are meat eaters — savages."

According to wolf researcher Carlos Carroll, who was among the scientists studying Mexican wolves for the Fish and Wildlife Service, the probability of wolves targeting humans is low.

Carcinogens emitted from Canada's main fossil fuel hub, study says

Carcinogens emitted from Canada's main fossil fuel hub, study says

4 sea lions with evidence of gunshot wounds have been found in Malibu

4 sea lions with evidence of gunshot wounds have been found in Malibu

Sage grouse in California, Nevada to get endangered-species protection

Sage grouse in California, Nevada to get endangered-species protection

"All we can go on is what has happened in the past," said Carroll, a conservation biologist with the Klamath Center for Conservation Research in Northern California. "There have been maybe two to three attacks in the last decade — in Canada and Alaska, where there are thousands of wolves."

Wolf advocate Michael Robinson with the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity said he respected people's fears but added, "The risk has been greatly exaggerated for cynical reasons."

Likewise, the incidence of wolves killing cattle and sheep is actually much less common than widely believed. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, about a third of sheep deaths nationwide are attributable to predators, with wolves accountable for only 0.4% of those attacks. The data indicate that domestic dogs are responsible for nearly 20 times more sheep kills than wolves.

Similar numbers hold true for cattle, where wolf kills rank behind deaths by coyotes, domestic dogs, cougars and vultures, which have attacked calves.

Ranchers are compensated when they can prove livestock have been killed by wolves. Crigler lost three calves last year and was reimbursed by a government program, but she said the payment was below fair market value.

"It's already hard enough to make a living," she said, adding that a neighboring cattleman was getting ready to walk away from the business because of wolves.

It's undeniable that small ranchers and farmers face economic troubles — and it's common for some people to feel powerless living in states where the federal government is the landlord of more than half the landscape.

But some anti-wolf advocates in Albuquerque hold wolves responsible for such diverging issues as the depopulation of small towns and the closing of country schools.

"They attach a lot of rancor to wolf recovery that isn't about wolves," said John Horning, executive director of WildEarth Guardians, based in Santa Fe, N.M. "It's a symbol. It's about the loss of political capital, the economic decline of rural life. Wolves are a surrogate for all the changes that are happening that are very frightening."

David Spady, the California director of Americans for Prosperity and producer of the anti-wolf documentary, readily agreed that wolves are a launching pad to air an array of grievances, from taxes to state's rights.

"The whole debate over the wolf is part of other battles over the Endangered Species Act and failed government programs," said Spady, who wore silver wolf-head cuff links.

"The wolf is symbolic of a larger fact: The federal government is running roughshod over private property rights," he said. "We at the local level believe that we understand the needs of our place, rather than somebody in Washington, D.C."

The Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has ordered the trapping of three critically endangered wild Mexican gray wolves. The alpha male and female of the Paradise Pack in Arizona and a male of the Fox Mountain Pack in New Mexico will be taken from their families and forced to spend the remainder of their lives in captivity.

At last official count, there were only 75 Mexican gray wolves in the wild, making them the most endangered mammal in north America, and the most endangered wolf in the world. Every single wild Mexican wolf is a loss, yet USFWS continues to treat these wolves as expendable.

Since 1998, the government has removed 54 wolves from the wild. Most were trapped and 13 were shot by predator-control agents. Federal agencies still don’t require livestock owners using public lands to take basic steps to prevent conflict, such as removing carcasses of dead cattle and other proven successful prevention measures. And it has been almost five years since USFWS successfully released a new Mexican wolf into the wild.

Please call the USFWS and your members of congress and tell them these wolves deserve to live their lives out in the wild. Share this message with everyone you know and ask them to do the same.

Here are three key points to make when you call:

1. These wolves should be kept in the wild.

Wolves are social animals that rely on family members in hunting and pup rearing. Trapping or darting these wolves, and removing them forever, will disrupt their family pack structure, which research has shown leads to more livestock issues, not fewer. It will place these wolves and all of the wolves in their packs at risk, since capture carries a high risk of accidental death or injury. And it will set us back to the policy of scapegoating wolves who occasionally prey on livestock -- even when the stock-owner is reimbursed.

2. The US Fish and Wildlife Service should release many more wolves, not remove them.

At last count, just 75 wolves including three breeding pairs survived in the wild. If the USFWS is truly concerned about the growth of the population and its genetic health, the answer is more releases of captive wolves, not more wild wolves lost to risky trapping operations and permanent captivity. Instead of taking these wolves from their families, USFWS needs to focus on expediting releases of many more wolves from captivity to strengthen the wild population.

3. Removing or killing critically endangered Mexican gray wolves is not the solution to livestock conflicts.

There are many solutions to conflicts between livestock and wolves, but there are very few Mexican gray wolves. Livestock businesses on public lands are reimbursed for losses and can receive government and non-profit assistance for non-lethal proactive measures to avoid depredation-they have a responsibility to do so. Deterrents to livestock conflicts are the solutions, not removing more endangered Mexican wolves.

If you live in New Mexico, calls to your Senators are the top priority. If you live elsewhere, calls to the US Fish and Wildlife Service are the priority. If you can call your members of Congress and the USFWS, that will help most.

At the same time the USFWS is attempting to trap these wolves, it is taking comments on proposal to change Mexican wolf management. Part of the proposal could help get more wolves into the wild, but most of it threatens the Mexican wolf’s continued survival and recovery. Your comments are needed to help lobos survive beyond the current crisis. Click here.

Recently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed changes to the rules governing the Mexican wolf reintroduction. The proposal, with one very good and many very bad changes, is very important to the future of Mexican wolves. Please comment on the proposed changes and include the following key points:1. The good change is to allow direct releases of Mexican wolves throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. The USFWS should put the rest of their proposed rule on hold and speed up approval for more direct releases in expanded areas.This change has been recommended by experts for over 10 years and can be made faster and with less bureaucratic delay than any other part of the proposed rule.2. The proposed rule effectively prevents wolves returning to the Grand Canyon region, including northern Arizona and southern Utah, or to northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. The USFWS should eliminate boundaries to the wolves’ movement.Scientists say some of the last best places for wolves are in these areas, but currently wolves who set up territories outside the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area are recaptured and moved back. Under the proposed change, the USFWS will recapture Mexican wolves just for going outside of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area whether they establish territories or not. Additional populations of Mexican wolves are necessary to their recovery and genetic health, as is the ability for wolves to move between populations.Capturing and moving wolves is always a risky business that can result in death or trauma to the wolf. And a bigger box is still a box. 3. The USFWS should not re-designate Mexican gray wolves as experimental, non-essential. By labeling all of the wild wolves as “nonessential” the USFWS ignores science and the reality of 15 years of experience with reintroducing wolves. The USFWS claims that even if all of the 75 wolves in the wild are wiped out this is not “likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood” of recovery of Mexican wolves in the wild. When the current rule declared wolves in the wild “nonessential” there were only 11 wolves, recently released from a captive breeding program, and they made up only 7% of all Mexican wolves in the world.Now the 75 wolves in the wild have up to four generations of experience in establishing packs and raising pups and are over 22% of all of the Mexican wolves in the world. And after four generations of captive breeding with few releases, scientists warn that there may be serious genetic problems making captive wolves less able to thrive in the wild.The fourth generation wild lobos are not expendable and are essential to recovering this unique subspecies of wolf. 4. The USFWS needs to quit stalling and complete a comprehensive recovery plan – and let the public see it – at the same time as or before changing the current rule (except for allowing wolves to be reintroduced into additional suitable places). USFWS admits that their present, typewritten, 1982 recovery plan is not scientifically sound and does not meet current legal requirements – yet in its proposed rule USFWS continues to emphasize a woefully inadequate population of only 100 wolves in the wild.When USFWS published the current rule in 1998 they said they expected to put out a new recovery plan for the public to comment on later that year; 15 years later, there still is no scientific or legally adequate recovery plan! The proposed rule puts the cart before the horse and should come with or after – not before – an updated recovery planUSFWS’s decisions on the proposed rule can help Mexican wolves finally thrive or can push them closer to extinction. Please comment today, and ask others to do the same. You can submit your comments online here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056Or by mail addressed to: Public Comments Processing -Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056 Division of Policy and Directives ManagementU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDMArlington, VA 22203If you live in New Mexico, you can also help by calling NM Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich:Udall: ABQ: (505) 346-6791 ~ Santa Fe: (505) 988-6511Heinrich: ABQ: (505) 346-6601 ~ Santa Fe: (505) 988-6647Sample phone script:Hello, my name is ___________________, and I am a constituent from _________________ and a supporter of Mexican wolf recovery. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed rule changes that affect the future of endangered Mexican gray wolves. I want Senator Udall (Or Heinrich) to use his influence to persuade the US Fish and Wildlife Service to:* Expedite a rule change that allows new Mexican wolves to be released directly into New Mexico and throughout the recovery area;* Do all in its power to improve the wild population’s genetic health; and* Increase protections for these important native animals.Thank you.Thank you for giving these special wolves a voice in their future!Click here to join our email list for Mexican gray wolf updates and action alerts. Visit us on Facebook here. http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/1059/51/Act-Now-to-Ensure-Mexican-Wolf-Recovery

WOLFISH HOWLS OF PROTEST

PLAN WOULD DRAMATICALLY EXPAND

REINTRODUCTION RANGE

FOR MEXICAN WOLF

By Pete Aleshire As of Tuesday, September 24, 2013

A federal plan to dramatically increase the range of reintroduced Mexican gray wolves to include most of Gila County has provoked a flurry of reaction — much of it critical.

The Gila County Board of Supervisors last week approved a 14-page position paper asking a blizzard of questions about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to salvage the faltering, 15-year-old effort by expanding the area for the wolves from a remote expanse along the Arizona-New Mexico border to include much of central Arizona and New Mexico.

A plan to increase the range of reintroduced Mexican gray wolves to include most of Gila County has provoked a flurry of reaction.

The county also appealed to the USFWS to delay the new rules.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in response to the reaction extended the public comment period on the plan from today to Oct. 28.

Last week, one longtime outfitter and guide decried the plan speaking at the Shoot for the Heart series of lectures on outdoor topics in Payson. Steve Smith said the captive-reared wolves won’t behave like wild-reared wolves and may not represent a pure strain anyway. He suggested that if the wolves were allowed to spread outside of the existing recovery area, they’d prey on cattle and reduce elk herds — to the detriment of hunters and ranchers.

The Arizona Department of Game and Fish Commission has also adopted a resolution asking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to hold pubic hearings on the plan in Arizona.

The new area for possible release of new wolves would encompass the entire swathe of Arizona between Interstate 40 and Interstate 10, which includes all of Rim Country — plus lots of desert terrain.

The furor centers on a dramatic expansion in the range of the reintroduced wolves after biologists concluded that the remote tract of wilderness land couldn’t sustain a viable population of the once plentiful subspecies of gray wolves.

The biologists running the program want to establish a self-sustaining population of at least 100 Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. After a decade of frustration and stagnation, they recommended the expansion after essentially running out of places they could establish new wolf packs. An estimated 75 wolves now roam across the 5,000-square-mile Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.

However, people have been killing the wolves at such a rate that the population growth rate has basically stalled. Between 1998 and 2012, some 92 wolves have died — 50 of them shot, 14 hit by cars, 17 from natural causes, three from the stress of being recaptured and eight from unknown causes.

The rules for the current “experimental” population have also led biologists to kill or recapture wolves either because they wander outside the designated recovery area or harass or kill cattle. Of the 92 wolves released since 1998, biologists have permanently removed 36 and temporarily moved or removed 118 — since they have shifted some wolves around more than once. The highly territorial wolf packs defend a large home territory. When packs get too big, the younger wolves head off on their own. Moreover, an existing pack will often drive out new wolves released in their area. As a result, biologists have only managed to release one new wolf into the existing recovery area in the past several years.

The environmental impact statement on the proposed rule change concluded, “our current management regulations are unlikely to enable us to attain a viable, self-sustaining population of Mexican wolves in the wild.”

This led the biologists running the program to propose expanding the area in which new wolves could be released from a captive-breeding population of about 250. All of those wolves come from just seven wolves captured in the wild from the last three packs in the U.S. Many of those seven original wolves are closely related, which means the reintroduced population still struggles with the debilitating effects on reproduction of inbreeding.

The new regulations would also stop the practice of recapturing wolves that wander out of the recovery area. The biologists argue that this would allow the packs of reintroduced wolves to gradually colonize surrounding areas. So far the reintroduced wolves have lived mostly on elk and deer, although they have also preyed on cattle. The biologists argue the reintroduced wolves will seek out remote areas with lots of elk and deer and avoid inhabited areas with a lot of roads.

However, biologists would still capture or kill wolves that kill or harass cattle or grow too bold around people. People could also still kill wolves attacking cattle or pets.

Recently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed changes to the rules governing the Mexican wolf reintroduction. The proposal, with one very good and many very bad changes, is very important to the future of Mexican wolves. Please comment on the proposed changes and include the following key points:1. The good change is to allow direct releases of Mexican wolves throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. The USFWS should put the rest of their proposed rule on hold and speed up approval for more direct releases in expanded areas.This change has been recommended by experts for over 10 years and can be made faster and with less bureaucratic delay than any other part of the proposed rule.2. The proposed rule effectively prevents wolves returning to the Grand Canyon region, including northern Arizona and southern Utah, or to northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. The USFWS should eliminate boundaries to the wolves’ movement.Scientists say some of the last best places for wolves are in these areas, but currently wolves who set up territories outside the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area are recaptured and moved back. Under the proposed change, the USFWS will recapture Mexican wolves just for going outside of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area whether they establish territories or not. Additional populations of Mexican wolves are necessary to their recovery and genetic health, as is the ability for wolves to move between populations.Capturing and moving wolves is always a risky business that can result in death or trauma to the wolf. And a bigger box is still a box. 3. The USFWS should not re-designate Mexican gray wolves as experimental, non-essential. By labeling all of the wild wolves as “nonessential” the USFWS ignores science and the reality of 15 years of experience with reintroducing wolves. The USFWS claims that even if all of the 75 wolves in the wild are wiped out this is not “likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood” of recovery of Mexican wolves in the wild. When the current rule declared wolves in the wild “nonessential” there were only 11 wolves, recently released from a captive breeding program, and they made up only 7% of all Mexican wolves in the world.Now the 75 wolves in the wild have up to four generations of experience in establishing packs and raising pups and are over 22% of all of the Mexican wolves in the world. And after four generations of captive breeding with few releases, scientists warn that there may be serious genetic problems making captive wolves less able to thrive in the wild.The fourth generation wild lobos are not expendable and are essential to recovering this unique subspecies of wolf. 4. The USFWS needs to quit stalling and complete a comprehensive recovery plan – and let the public see it – at the same time as or before changing the current rule (except for allowing wolves to be reintroduced into additional suitable places). USFWS admits that their present, typewritten, 1982 recovery plan is not scientifically sound and does not meet current legal requirements – yet in its proposed rule USFWS continues to emphasize a woefully inadequate population of only 100 wolves in the wild.When USFWS published the current rule in 1998 they said they expected to put out a new recovery plan for the public to comment on later that year; 15 years later, there still is no scientific or legally adequate recovery plan! The proposed rule puts the cart before the horse and should come with or after – not before – an updated recovery planUSFWS’s decisions on the proposed rule can help Mexican wolves finally thrive or can push them closer to extinction. Please comment today, and ask others to do the same. You can submit your comments online here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056Or by mail addressed to: Public Comments Processing -Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056 Division of Policy and Directives ManagementU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDMArlington, VA 22203If you live in New Mexico, you can also help by calling NM Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich:Udall: ABQ: (505) 346-6791 ~ Santa Fe: (505) 988-6511Heinrich: ABQ: (505) 346-6601 ~ Santa Fe: (505) 988-6647Sample phone script:Hello, my name is ___________________, and I am a constituent from _________________ and a supporter of Mexican wolf recovery. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed rule changes that affect the future of endangered Mexican gray wolves. I want Senator Udall (Or Heinrich) to use his influence to persuade the US Fish and Wildlife Service to:* Expedite a rule change that allows new Mexican wolves to be released directly into New Mexico and throughout the recovery area;* Do all in its power to improve the wild population’s genetic health; and* Increase protections for these important native animals.Thank you.Thank you for giving these special wolves a voice in their future!Click here to join our email list for Mexican gray wolf updates and action alerts. Visit us on Facebook here. http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/1059/51/Act-Now-to-Ensure-Mexican-Wolf-Recovery

O

http://www.mexicanwolves.org/index.php/news/1103/51/Save-the-Lobo-Event-in-Albuquerque-October-4-2013Save the Lobo Event in Albuquerque October 4, 2013Rally and Testify at a Public Hearing to Save the Lobo from ExtinctionFriends of Lobos,Fifteen years after they were reintroduced, fewer than 75 Mexican gray wolves remain in the wild. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is now proposing to delist gray wolves and implement changes that threaten the continued existence of Mexican wolves. Only one hearing will be held on both dangerous proposals - on October 4 in Albuquerque, NM.Because this is so important, science and conservation groups throughout the four corners states and beyond are organizing a Save the Lobo event on the day of the hearing. You and other supporters of the Mexican wolf are all that will stand between extinction and survival for these critically endangered, beautiful and intelligent animals. Please stand up and speak up for the lobo on October 4.Location:Embassy Suites 1000 Woodward Place NEAlbuquerque, NM 87102Schedule:3:30 p.m. Tabling, free refreshments, sign-making, children’s art activities4:00 p.m. Training by Defenders of Wildlife 5:00 p.m. Save the Lobo Rally6:00 p.m. US Fish and Wildlife Service HearingWe know that special interests are organizing to call for an end to wolves at the hearing in Albuquerque. Your voice, joined with many others, is needed at the hearing if America’s wolves are to survive the attacks against them. This is a historic opportunity. A critical mass of supporters in Albuquerque on October 4 can turn the tide for wolves. So please save the date and spread the word. Join the event on Facebook.For more information, or to help with the event, email info@mexicanwolves.orgEvent to Save the Lobo Sponsored By:Defenders of Wildlife Sierra Club-Rio Grande Chapter WildEarth GuardiansCenter for Biological Diversity New Mexico Chapter of ConservAmericaSierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter Animal Protection of New Mexico The Wildlands NetworkSouthwest Environmental Center Wilburforce Foundation Conservation Voters New Mexico White Mountain Conservation League Grand Canyon Wildlands Council Western Wildlife Conservancy NM Wilderness AllianceFor information on how to submit comments to the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed changes to the Mexican gray wolf reintroduction rule and on how to encourage NM members of Congress to stand for wolves, click here.Photo credit: Nestled by Scott Denny on Fivehundredpx

Translocation of F1106 into the Gila National Forest in 2009(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Translocation of F1154 into the Gila National Forest in 2010(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Fox Mountain M1158 with an un-collared wolf in the fall of 2010 (Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Fox Mountain pups in the summer of 2008

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Hawks Nest AM619 in the summer of 2005

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Hawks Nest pups in the summer of 2010

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Luna mp1241 in the summer of 2011

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

M859’s track in the wild (Photo courtesy of Steve Dobrott.)

Mexican wolf pups in the wild

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Middle Fork AM871 and a bear

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Two Middle Fork pups in the summer of 2011

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Five Middle Fork pups in the summer of 2011

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

The Saddle Pack with AM732

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

San Mateo AF903 in the winter of 2009

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

San Mateo yearlings in 2006

(Photo courtesy of the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team.)

Transporting wolves into the Gila Wilderness in 2005

(Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)

Aspen Pack 2005 Translocation

(Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.)

SURVEY REPORTS ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO RESIDENTS

STRONGLY SUPPORT MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY

Lobo! In other words a Mexican wolf. On March 29, 1998, 11 captive-reared Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) were released to the wild for the first time in the Blue Range Recovery Area of Arizona and New Mexico. Missing from the landscape for more than 30 years, the howl of the rarest and most unique subspecies of gray wolf, was once again greeted by the mountains of the southwest. Thank you to Maria Aspen

Survey says elite public opinion on wolves in Southwest may differ greatly from average citizen’s-

According to the results of a survey released by Defenders of Wildlife (see their news release below), Arizona and New Mexico citizens strongly support recovery of the Mexican wolf. 300 randomly selected registered voters in each state were interviewed by Tulchin Research in a telephone survey.

The Mexican wolf sub-species was reintroduced from near extinction back in 1998. So far the recovery has not been successful with high mortality, low reproduction, amid much political interference.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, however, is proposing big wolf restoration improvements even as the guns are legally blazing away at the Mexican wolf’s larger cousin in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. This winter trappers will again be allowed to take their fill and head back out for more.

It is widely believed that opinion of many politicians and “sportsmen’s” groups in these states does not favor this small wolf, but this may not apply to the unorganized public.

Political science research beginning over 20 years ago showed that even then, the policies that the federal government pursued generally matched the results of well established public opinion studies on most major policies only at levels near mere chance (correlations near zero).

An extremely strong argument can be made that in American politics the existence of political organizations far outweighs the views of the unorganized masses.

News Release

Defenders of Wildlife

TUCSON (September 4, 2013) – Vast majorities in both Arizona and New Mexico strongly support continued efforts to restore Mexican gray wolves to the American southwest, according to a new poll released by Defenders of Wildlife. The poll comes as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is considering new proposals that would hamper Mexican gray wolf recovery and scheduling regional hearings to obtain public input on the proposal.

The poll, conducted last month for Defenders by Tulchin Research, shows that the majority of New Mexicans and Arizonans want to see wolves not just survive, but thrive, and want the FWS to take additional steps to ensure their continued recovery.

· 87% of voters in both states agree that wolves are a “vital part of America’s wilderness and natural heritage.”

· 8 in 10 voters agree that the FWS should make every effort to prevent extinction.

· 82% of Arizona voters and 74% of New Mexico voters agree there should be a science-based recovery plan.

· Over two-thirds of voters in both states agree with scientists who say there are too few Mexican gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico and that we need to reintroduce two new populations of wolves in suitable habitat in the states.

“Americans in the southwest see wolves as a vital part of the local landscape and they want efforts to restore them to continue,” said Eva Sargent, Southwest director for Defenders of Wildlife. “The Fish and Wildlife Service can make this happen if they let science rule the day and refuse to kowtow to the small minority in the region who oppose wolf recovery under any circumstances.”

The FWS current proposal would jeopardize wolf recovery by establishing artificial boundaries around wolf habitat, leaving excellent habitat outside these boundaries. Currently, wolves must remain within invisible boundaries in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico. If they establish territories outside this area, they are trapped and moved back, which scientists say is a hindrance to recovery. The new proposal would expand these boundaries, but would still capture and return any wolf that so much as strays outside.

“The Service continues to want to keep the wolves boxed in between arbitrary lines on a map,” said Sargent.“They are proposing a bigger box, but it’s still a box. If they are going to survive, we need to let wolves be wolves and allow them to live in suitable habitat throughout the region.”

Scientists also say that to recover, there need to be more releases of new wolves to strengthen the gene pool as well as new populations established in different areas of the Southwest, with dispersal allowed between those populations.

“By the late 1970s, the Mexican gray wolf was nearly eradicated and because today’s 75 wild individuals are all descended from the only seven wolves saved at that time, their genetic health has been severely compromised,” said Phil Hedrick, a geneticist and former Mexican gray wolf recovery team expert. “The Service knows this, and we have made it clear that if a recovery plan is not completed and implemented immediately, one which allows for dispersal, these animals cannot recover.”

The Service has announced that it will hold a public meeting to take comments that will help to determine the fate of these iconic, imperiled animals. The hearing will be held on Friday, October 4, 2013 in Albuquerque, NM. Defenders of Wildlife will host an open house for wolf advocates in advance of the meeting and members will be on hand to help attendees submit written and oral comments in hopes that we can make the Service hear the desperate howl of the Mexican gray wolf.

“If there’s one thing the Mexican gray wolves have on their side, it’s good objective scientists who are figuring out how to save them,” says Sargent. “What they don’t have is time. The Service must hear what science tells us the wolves need – access to suitable habitat in the Grand Canyon ecoregion and Northern New Mexico/Southern Colorado, new genes, and help establishing additional populations. When we give wolves our best effort, they return the favor by making landscapes healthier for everyone.”

The move comes after the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over a federal permit to trap and capture Mexican gray wolves.

That 2011 permit allegedly stipulated that "endangered wolves that enter Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico or the Northern Rocky Mountains population can be captured or trapped and relocated to the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (where they will be treated for all purposes as part of the nonessential experimental population), returned to Mexico, or placed indefinitely in a captive breeding facility." (Parentheses in complaint.)

Any wolf found in those states, outside the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in the Apache National Forest of Arizona and the Gila National Forest of New Mexico, was subject to the trapping and "indefinite incarceration," the Tucson-based environmental group added.

It voluntarily dismissed the action Monday after Fish and Wildlife Service announced separate agreements rescinding the plans.

"FWS acknowledges that any removal of a Mexican wolf by FWS is constrained by permit TE-091551-8 and 63 Fed. Reg. 1752 (Jan. 12, 1998), which provides that '[i]f a wolf is found in the United States outside the boundaries of the Mexican wolf experimental population area (and not within any other wolf experimental population area) the service will presume it to be of wild origin with full endangered status ... under the Act, unless evidence, such as a radio collar, identification mark, or physical or behavioral traits ... establishes otherwise,'" the five-page filing states.

Fish and Wildlife Service also proposed a change to a 1998 rule for managing roughly 75 wolves that were reintroduced into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, a small area in central Arizona and New Mexico.

The change allows for the direct release of wolves into the Gila National Forest, and expands allowed recovery territories to include all of Arizona and New Mexico between Interstate 10 and Interstate 40.

Under the current rule, wolves from a captive pool can only be released in Arizona and are captured if they establish territories outside the current recovery area.

"These agreements should breathe new life into the struggling Mexican wolf recovery program and expand the wolf's habitat here," Center for Biological Diversity spokesman Michael Robinson said in a statement. "The Mexican gray wolf is an icon of the Southwest and I'm thrilled it will have better protection."

Fish and Wildlife Service aimed to have at least 100 Mexican gray wolves in the wild by 2006, the environmental group said, but the program struggled amid illegal shooting, captures in response to livestock conflicts and restrictions on where wolves can be released from captivity.

"We're glad the Fish and Wildlife Service is finally making much needed changes to the Mexican wolf recovery program but these changes clearly don't go far enough," Robinson added.

"The science is clear that if Mexican gray wolves are to have any shot at recovery, they must be allowed to expand and establish population centers beyond what Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed.

The Grand Canyon, southern Rockies and borderlands all provide habitat where wolves could be restored. We sure hope the Fish and Wildlife Service will allow wolves to move into these areas."

The Mexican gray wolf is "one of the rarest and most endangered mammals on the continent," the Center for Biological Diversity says.

It calculates that only 75 Mexican gray wolves and three Mexican wolf breeding pairs remained in the wild at the beginning of 2013.

By JIM SECKLERPublished: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 12:57 AM MDTThe Daily NewsKINGMAN — The Mohave County supervisors postponed Monday deciding whether to become a cooperating or coordinating agency with the federal government on a Mexican gray wolf reintroduction plan.The board decided to direct staff to find out if the county can be a coordinating instead of a cooperating agency with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s plan to reintroduce the Mexican wolf into Arizona and into a small section of Mohave County south of Interstate 40. The government estimates there are about 75 Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico.District 5 Sup. Steve Moss of Fort Mohave said being a coordinating agency with the federal government would allow the county to be part of the discussion. Moss also suggested joining other counties in hiring a geneticist to determine whether the wolves are pure breed or mixed with other animals.* District 1 Sup. Gary Watson also said becoming a cooperating or coordinating agency and signing a memorandum of understanding with the government allows the county to be at the table in the discussion.District 4 Sup. Joy Brotherton of Kingman opposed signing any memorandum or becoming a cooperating or coordinating agency saying it would not make any difference. She said other counties have to join together in opposing the plan.The supervisors recently held a town hall taking public comment on the plan to re-introduce the Mexican wolf into the county. Most of the audience was local ranchers who complained of the loss of livestock and game such as elk to wolves as well as the wolves being a threat to humans.

Published: Sunday, September 15, 2013 2:08 AM MDTPHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Game and Fish Department will hold informational meetings this month on federal proposals regarding Mexican wolves.It’s to share information with constituents on two proposed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules dealing with Mexican wolf conservation.The first federal rule proposes delisting the gray wolf from the federal list of threatened and endangered species but maintaining endangered status.The second federal rule proposes expansion of the geographic boundaries of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area in Arizona and New Mexico as well as modification of a rule for managing the experimental population.* The public meetings are scheduled for Sept. 23 in Payson, Sept. 25 in Tucson and Sept. 26 in Pinetop.Public comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service on both proposed rules are due by Oct. 28.http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2013/09/15/news/state/doc5235661baf4e0878083819.txtPhoto credit: fc02(dot)deviantart(dot)net

KINGMAN — The Mohave County supervisors will discuss Monday whether to cooperate with a federal plan to introduce the Mexican gray wolf.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service held a conference in New Mexico in early August on a plan to reintroduce the Mexican wolf to Arizona and even into the southeastern part of Mohave County south of Interstate 40. The government estimates there are 75 Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico.

District 1 Sup. Gary Watson previously said that the board of supervisors opposes the federal program to introduce the wolf into Mohave County.

The supervisors recently held a town hall allowing public comment on the federal plan to re-introduce the Mexican wolf into Mohave County. The town hall consisted mostly of ranchers who complained of the loss of livestock and game such as elk to wolves as well as being a physical threat to humans.

* Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter Director Sandy Bahr previously argued that the federal government does provide funds to compensate for the loss of cattle to wolves. Cattle also can die from other reasons such as starvation, eating noxious plants or other predators.

Bahr also said wolves help keep the elk population more fit and healthy. Without wolves, elk will eat everything and destroy vegetation and grassland areas. Elk also have an impact on aspen regeneration.

A draft of the environmental impact statement is now available. Approval of the plan is targeted for August 2014.

The board of supervisors will hold its meeting at 9:30 a.m. Monday in the board of supervisors auditorium at the county administration building, 700 W. Beale St., Kingman.

Posted on October 11, 2012 by MaggieAfter months of giving the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) the slip, Mexican wolf F1188, the alpha female of the Fox Mountain Pack, was unfortunately captured. Back in August, USFWS issued a kill order on the elusive loba for the depredation of cattle. This news raised hackles among many wildlife advocacy organizations and their supporters. With less than 58 Mexican gray wolves in the wild, the call for her lethal removal was unacceptable and the masses agreed. The public outcry on behalf this mother with pups gained great momentum. Thankfully, not long after the kill order was issued, the great folks from the Southwest Wildlife Conservation Center offered to pay to have F1188 captured alive and to give her a permanent home at their facility in Scottsdale, AZ. It was a bittersweet victory for the wolf and those of us who spoke out against the kill order, because now this critically endangered wild wolf will remain in permanent captivity. F1188 is an important member of her pack, she leaves behind her growing pups born last spring. While it’s a relief her life was spared, her removal from the wild represents another unnatural challenge for the less than 58 Mexican gray wolves that currently reside in the wild and the family she leaves behind.The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), or “lobo,” is the smallest, southernmost occurring, and most genetically distinct subspecies of gray wolf in North America. Aggressive predator control programs at the turn of the century all but exterminated the Mexican wolf from the wild. With the capture of the last 7 remaining wild Mexican wolves approximately 30 years ago, a captive breeding program was initiated helping to save the Mexican wolf from extinction. Today, the captive population consists of approximately 300 animals, and encompasses close to 50 zoos and wildlife facilities throughout the United States and Mexico.This entry was posted in Mexican Gray Wolves, News and tagged Fox Mountain Pack, Mexican Gray Wolves, Southwest Wildlife Conservation Center, USFWS, wolf depredation. Bookmark the permalink.

It was a dark week in Washington state where six wolves from the Wedge Pack were killed in three days including the alpha female. Yesterday, the alpha male was killed by a sharpshooter from a helicopter. It is not known what happened to the pups.

The death of the alpha pair and four adult wolves ends the Wedge Wolf Pack in Washington.

Washington killed the Wedge Pack because of 17 accused attacks on cows at the nearby Diamond M Ranch. Now there are only seven confirmed packs left in the remote, rugged forests of northeast Washington.

Here in the Southwest, let us not follow the mistakes and senseless killing that now plagues recovery in the Northern Rockies.

Let us stand firm that the removal or killing of critically endangered wolves is NOT a solution to livestock conflicts.

New Mexico state officials implemented a kill order for the alpha female of the Fox Mountain wolf pack because of "livestock depredation" but your calls and emails flooded the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) office and they withdrew the order to kill her.

You proved citizen action works! In the past few weeks, news stories, editorials, and guest columns about the Fox Mountain pack’s plight have appeared in the press all over the country. The public outcry on behalf of these critically endangered wolves can not be ignored.

Public support helped U.S. Congressman Grijalva send the USFWS a letter expressing strong concerns about plans to take the Fox Mountain alpha female from her family and place her in permanent captivity. The Fox Mountain alpha female should not live her life in the prison of captivity.

As long as she continues to run free there is hope to save her from a life in captivity. We need to keep the pressure on. Keep your voices loud and strong for the Fox Mountain alpha, one of only 58 wolves left in the Southwest.

Always Watching by Scott Denny on FivehundredpxA female Mexican Gray Wolf in the Brookfield Zoo just outside of Chicago Illinois. Most all Mexican Wolves are in captivity. There are only 60 in the wild in the southwestern area of the United States. Sadly they are struggling. The Mexican Wolf was hunted to extinction in the wild by the hand of man. Now the hand of man has to help keep this species in existence. Isn't that a familiar story?
FEDERAL PLAN WOULD EXPAND RANGE IN ARIZONA FOR GRAY WOLVEShttp://www.havasunews.com/news/federal-plan-would-expand-range-in-az-for-gray-wolves/article_4402359a-fd80-11e2-8be0-001a4bcf887a.html
Posted: Monday, August 5, 2013 12:01 amAssociated Press
FLAGSTAFF — The federal government is floating a plan that would let endangered Mexican gray wolves roam north toward Flagstaff and across Arizona for the first time in generations.The Arizona Daily Sun reports (http://bit.ly/1bZONIg ) that the government's wolf reintroduction program has limited the animals to a recovery area that straddles the Arizona-New Mexico state line, where they have struggled to gain a foothold. Currently, any wolf leaving the recovery area is captured and returned.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a draft of proposed changes last month that, if put into effect, would let wolves roam from western Arizona to eastern New Mexico between Interstates 40 and 10.The draft includes potential wolf reintroduction sites in northern Arizona on the Tonto National Forest, throughout the Sitgreaves National Forest and other public lands, as well as private lands where there's a participating landowner. The Apache tribe has an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service that has allowed wolves to roam on their lands in eastern Arizona.The Mexican wolf was added to the federal endangered species list in 1976. The 15-year effort to reintroduce them in New Mexico and Arizona has stumbled due to legal battles, illegal shootings, politics and other problems.The federal proposal calls for expanding the area where the wolves could roam to include parts of the Cibola National Forest in central New Mexico. In all, there would be a tenfold increase in the area where biologists are working to rebuild the population.Environmentalists welcomed the prospect of expansion, but they voiced concerns about provisions that could create loopholes that would expand circumstances in which wolves could be killed for attacking livestock or for other reasons.Wolves have been spotted in the past as close to Flagstaff as Mormon Lake and Holbrook along Interstate 40, as the animals are capable of traveling vast distances in search of food and mates.Emily Nelson of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project in Flagstaff said in an interview with the Daily Sun that conservation groups were unhappy with the initial federal proposal because it doesn't include some of the "last, best area for wolves."Scientists have identified the Grand Canyon as prime wolf territory.While the current population has never gotten close to the goal of 100 wolves, scientists say as many as 200 wolves could be supported in the Grand Canyon region alone.Judy Prosser, whose family operates a ranch south of Mormon Lake and owns some 2,000 head of livestock, would see her grazing lands put inside the expanded wolf recovery area.Prosser said that her ranching friends in the current recovery area have struggled and not been happy with the way things were managed. Losing livestock has affected their pocketbooks."The program has not been successful. I don't think anyone has been happy with the outcome," she said.

2 comments:

Please stop and end cruelty hunting or trapping or killing. this is important in the country. respect and responsible wolves ecosystem , we need health and balance wildlife, do the right things, don't let more bloody to the country, give love and save wolves. run free nature and wolves. Thank you.